Originally Posted by
ricktee
Japanese quake is measured at 9.0. Christchurch Quake is measured at 6.3. The big difference is Japan's tall buildings held up better than the buildings in Christchurch. That is the reason why I think NZ codes should liken Japanese building design and codes for tall buildings.
"The big difference" needs to take into account other differences: The location of the epicentre, and its depth, and the specific ground conditions.
Also, did the design follow just the building code or has there been done voluntarily more?
Originally Posted by
ricktee
If they used the current code to evaluate building safety, then that proves that they need to change the code.
They used the same code before the Sept '10 and before Feb '11 quake.
After seeing the damage of the Feb 22 quake, I would think engineers would be reluctant in approving a WOF using the same codes. Would you?
I don't agree that it "proves" it. It is an indicator to rethink our risk assessment as a society.
The technical evaluation is not finished yet. Currently no one can tell. How our findings will be evaluated again is also a question.
As I wrote earlier: "Finally it will be up to the government - as the society's representatives to decide further action, if required. "The Government may also consider whether the design levels expressed in the Building Code represent the risk appetite of the New Zealand public and balance that against building and occupancy cost.""